It’s official: The United States Olympic Committee has selected Boston for its bid for the Summer Olympics in 2024.
In a hard-fought competition against Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington D.C., Beantwon came out on top and will now begin its campaign to host the summer games in nine years’ time. The USA was the third country (after Germany and Italy) to officially launch their bidding process, although a number of other destinations have also expressed their interest, including France, South Africa, Morocco, Australia, Russia, and Turkey. Boston’s race for the finish line has only just begun.
Many have questioned the wisdom of the selection, raising concerns over the practicality of the city’s existing infrastructure and compact layout. Boston does not yet possess a velodrome, an aquatics center or a large-scale stadium, and the real estate to build these large-scale venues comes at a premium. On top of this there is the obligatory Olympic Village — for the most recent summer games, London developed a site of approximately 70 acres for athletes’ accommodation.
Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway, Boston. Via Wikipedia
Members of pressure group No Boston Olympics say that council officials should be focusing on issues pertaining to the local economy, the prospects of small businesses, and improvements to education in the city. They contend that the Olympics will not have a positive impact in any of these areas: “In fact, it threatens to divert resources and attention away from these challenges — all for a chance to host an event that economists say does not leave local economies better off. The boosters behind Boston 2024 won today — but our Commonwealth is poorer for it.”
On the contrary, others stepped up to defend the decision and called for optimism in the face of such a great challenge for the city. Boston Globe journalist Shirley Leung pointed out the many great achievements of the city and its people, following severe bouts of self-doubt and negativity:
“They said we couldn’t clean up Boston Harbor. They said we couldn’t take down the Central Artery and build a third tunnel. They said we couldn’t host a Democratic National Convention. They said we couldn’t win the World Series.
“Actually, ‘they’ was largely ‘we.’
“Where would we be if we listened to our naysaying selves?”
© Emmanuel Huybrechts
Boston Harbor. Via Alive Campus
Leung points out that one of Boston’s perceived weaknesses — its tight-knit central layout — can be harnessed as a positive attribute for the world’s biggest celebration of sport. Indeed, Boston’s scale was touted as an advantage in its proposal: New venues are to be carefully situated so that they are walkable, and integrated with existing transit hubs. Those in charge of the bid even produced a complex computer model — at the cost of $1.5 million — to show how additional transport and sporting infrastructure would affect the city.
The 3D Model of Boston presented by Olympic planners. Via The Boston Globe
As well as compactness, the bid also emphasized the importance of frugality: Boston Mayor Marty Walsh and Governor Charlie Baker are hoping to keep costs down by partnering with Universities, and building structures that can be used for other purposes. The University of Massachusetts Boston has already been touted as a potential venue for the Olympic village, one that could subsequently be converted into 5,000 houses for students.
Furthermore, sporting venues are already in the pipeline. A proposed stadium for the city’s MLS team, New England Revolution, is currently in the works; this could be adopted for the Olympics before being handed back to the soccer club after the Games.
Proposed MLS soccer stadium. Via The Boston Globe
Despite their understandable trepidation, Leung urges Bostonians to savor this early success, and celebrate its great potential to enhance the city’s global reputation. “Our nomination signals that someone believes we can hold our own against — and even beat — Paris, Rome, Berlin, and any other rival bidder. We can allow ourselves to be mentioned in the same breath as London, Tokyo, and Sydney — world-class cities that have played host before.”
Despite inevitable cost overruns and administrative wrangling, the 2012 games in London are largely considered to have been a success (at least by the politicians), demonstrating that shrewd decisions about organization — not to mention the employment of some top-notch architects — the Games need not be the terrible economic drain that detractors dread.
Boston by night. Via Dentons
This being said, Boston city’s size and associated infrastructure does not match that of the UK’s capital, so the task in hand is an entirely different prospect. The road ahead is a long one — a veritable n-athlon — peppered with architectural, financial, and bureaucratic hurdles. The decision to award the city this bid appears to be a large leap of faith on the part of the United States Olympic Committee, and many will question this choice in the years to come.
Boston 2024 pitch video
But then again, what better time could there be to attempt a gigantic leap than at the Olympics? Time will tell if this city can take the gold…
Yours athletically,
The Angry Architect
